What happened to the Wiggins thread
Comments
-
RichN95 wrote:
...hour after hour, day after day...weekendcyclingfan wrote:Probably...alone.
That's the very definition of a bore. If this is your life I pity you.
Says the bloke with 17k + posts
seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Pinno wrote:underlayunderlay wrote:
Is there any proper racing yet?Garry H wrote:The usual bollox
No and that is the problem. The weather is pants, it's at least 5 weeks to Milan San Remo and there's no bones left to chew on. Everything has been covered ad nauseum.
Perhaps, what we really need is... drugs. Prescription drugs: barbiturates, anti-depressants. That sort of thing; to tide us over...
(There's irony in there somewhere).
Oi!0 -
Pinno wrote:RichN95 wrote:
...hour after hour, day after day...weekendcyclingfan wrote:Probably...alone.
That's the very definition of a bore. If this is your life I pity you.
Says the bloke with 17k + posts
Working through the figures though, WCF is 1.4 times more boring on a daily basis...
Can't argue with science.
Or WCF, come to think of it.0 -
Salsiccia1 wrote:Vino'sGhost wrote:The thing with ridiculing wcf and anyone who dares doubt wiggins is that its a lot like trumps approach to rewriting facts.
Sorry, respectfully I disagree. For me, there is some doubt about Wiggins, but it's the desperation for us to accept that there's absolutely no possibility he was not doping that made the discussion so grating. And trying to use the Daily Mail as some sort of authority on cycling and an objective reporter of facts is faintly ludicrous.
Most of us accept that, at the least, Wiggins might have gamed the TUE system. But it's the unwillingness to accept any possibility that Sky/Wiggins are not US Postal mk2 that undermines any semblance of reasonableness and objectivity.
Agree with all of this. I do think that Kenalog "if" taken for performance gains, is not a drug taken in isolation. It forms part of a program. That's just my opinion. We don't know if that to be true as of yet.0 -
RichN95 wrote:
In three years more than it took you to get 25k. You must be using some sort of motor.Pinno wrote:
Says the bloke with 17k + posts
I monopolised the 'Big girls thread'. Unfortunately, I will probably be labelled the wife beating women objectifying misogynyst from hell for eternity but at least 99% of my posts are inane bollox and if you find a worrying trend towards the slightest seriousness, just let me know.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
RichN95 wrote:
That's not true. I don't think anyone would suggest you have a wifePinno wrote:
I monopolised the 'Big girls thread'. Unfortunately, I will probably be labelled the wife beating women objectifying misogynyst from hell for eternity .
I do (well, sort of - 13 years living in sin) and two kids. None of them take me seriously.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Pinno wrote:RichN95 wrote:
...hour after hour, day after day...weekendcyclingfan wrote:Probably...alone.
That's the very definition of a bore. If this is your life I pity you.
Says the bloke with 17k + posts
Haha! True!
0 -
Across a range of topics though. It's the repetitiveness as much as the quantity that makes you tedious.weekendcyclingfan wrote:Haha! True!
Your 'buddy' not turned up yet?Twitter: @RichN950 -
Matthewfalle wrote:weekendcyclingfan wrote:RichN95 wrote:
You're in New York, one of the most vibrant cities in the world and you chose to spend day after day banging on about the same thing on the internet without getting anywhere.weekendcyclingfan wrote:Probably the first time and the last that a Welsh person considered themselves more interesting than a New Yorker! Now that is humor!
Besides, who cares, who's right? Aren't we allowed to discuss the events with Wiggins/BC and Sky? If you don't want to read it or participate there are countless other threads to post in.
Methinks you are uncomfortable with the fact that Wiggins might have doped and Sky/BC are not as ethical that they may claim to be. That is not my fault or anyone's else. Perhaps take that frustration out on the perpetrators and let those who wish to discuss the details, discuss it. This is not your forum alone.
That's the very definition of a bore.
Not at all. I post in the morning from my iPhone. Over lunch, rarely on weekends, sometimes at night. You see, not all day. But in New York we love doing 37 things at once. I'm typing this post now waiting for a buddy to turn up for some beers. Cool eh?
In Wales, I'm sure its cold, dark, raining and everyone is complaining. No wonder you get fed up with everyone on internet forums.
You are correct. It's also full of people with funny voices - especially here in the valleys .......
After James Corden became a big hit over here, I went back and watched Gavin & Stacey. They do have funny voices. Fact.0 -
RichN95 wrote:
Across a range of topics though. It's the repetitiveness as much as the quantity that makes you tedious.weekendcyclingfan wrote:Haha! True!
Your 'buddy' not turned up yet?
No he is here, we're on 50th & Lex if you want to join? Invite Saddles and we can go talk to some women (not girls), as long as you two promise not to talk about cycling all night.
Or if your not still up in dark old wales at 11:30pm at night taping away at a Internet forum! Lol! 0 -
RichN95 wrote:
Across a range of topics though. It's the repetitiveness as much as the quantity that makes you tedious.weekendcyclingfan wrote:Haha! True!
Your 'buddy' not turned up yet?
Don't forget that the buddy is a meandering spirit. He could drift in and out at anytime just like Betancur.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
weekendcyclingfan wrote:Matthewfalle wrote:weekendcyclingfan wrote:RichN95 wrote:
You're in New York, one of the most vibrant cities in the world and you chose to spend day after day banging on about the same thing on the internet without getting anywhere.weekendcyclingfan wrote:Probably the first time and the last that a Welsh person considered themselves more interesting than a New Yorker! Now that is humor!
Besides, who cares, who's right? Aren't we allowed to discuss the events with Wiggins/BC and Sky? If you don't want to read it or participate there are countless other threads to post in.
Methinks you are uncomfortable with the fact that Wiggins might have doped and Sky/BC are not as ethical that they may claim to be. That is not my fault or anyone's else. Perhaps take that frustration out on the perpetrators and let those who wish to discuss the details, discuss it. This is not your forum alone.
That's the very definition of a bore.
Not at all. I post in the morning from my iPhone. Over lunch, rarely on weekends, sometimes at night. You see, not all day. But in New York we love doing 37 things at once. I'm typing this post now waiting for a buddy to turn up for some beers. Cool eh?
In Wales, I'm sure its cold, dark, raining and everyone is complaining. No wonder you get fed up with everyone on internet forums.
You are correct. It's also full of people with funny voices - especially here in the valleys .......
After James Corden became a big hit over here, I went back and watched Gavin & Stacey. They do have funny voices. Fact.
Not all of them, stop being a cunt.0 -
weekendcyclingfan wrote:Rodrego Hernandez wrote:weekendcyclingfan wrote:Mikey23 wrote:Fanning the flames? I like to think of it as performing a valuable service by ensuring that discussions such as these reach a wider audience with a divergent range of opinions. Which has got to be good for democracy...
‘The cornerstone to effective government is a strong opposition’ I can't recite the actual quote right now, however democracy thrives on checks and balances and an alternative if the people do not like the manner in which current leaders lead and conduct themselves.
That's why discussion and debate is important. This forum at times appears very intent on not allowing discussion. It wishes to censor and close down reasonable debate which might lead to better understanding of the topics du jour.
But asking the same questions ad-nauseum is very different to a discussion.
You seemed to be continually asking the same questions that no one had answers to, asking hypothetical questions that ignored the facts as were known or asking questions despite the answers being known.
Most of your questions were answered at least once yet you declined to read them or if you did, you chose to ignore them.
That's what got the thread killed off, it wasn't an attempt to censor or close down reasonable debate. You did not provide any reasonable debate. You repeatedly asked the same questions, ignoring previous facts and answers.
And I guess you are going to do the same again until this thread is put out of its misery.
Asking questions, or having a discussion.
As I stated yesterday, there has been a good deal of information and CMS hearings etc. over the past 3 months. Therefore people want to discuss each of those incidents and events.
What I find here is a lot of finger pointing and blaming the messenger;
Daily Mail reports that a suspect package was delivered to Wiggins - Blame the Mail, its a propaganda tool for the Nazi's,
Brailsford gives some very strange response to the Daily Mail about the package and the reason for Cope's trip - Blame the Mail, its a propaganda tool for the Nazi's and nothing they write is true.
MP's question Brailsford and British Cycling over package and use of British Cycling - All the MPs don't know what they are talking about, they know nothing about pro cycling.
That's the level of discussion on this forum. Very few want to look at the details and provide a reasonable summation on what has occurred.
In terms of questions, I've answered all the questions asked of me with respect to Fancy Bears, Russian Doping, IAAF, JTL, Sky, Wiggins, Sutton etc. If its a serious question, I'll respond.
You're in no position to answer any questions with respect to the IAAF, JTL, Sky Wiggins, Sutton etc unless you are one of them or unless you are party to the information that they have. Which I will assume you arent.
Once again I'll remind you, the facts were all set out in the previous thread. The thread that you ruined. Even now you can't grasp the simplest of facts. You state that very few want to look at the detail. You are the biggest culprit.
I would guess that as far as cycling knowledge is concerned, yours is on a par with those MPs although their comprehension skills seem somewhat more advanced.0 -
Salsiccia1 wrote:Vino'sGhost wrote:The thing with ridiculing wcf and anyone who dares doubt wiggins is that its a lot like trumps approach to rewriting facts.
Sorry, respectfully I disagree. For me, there is some doubt about Wiggins, but it's the desperation for us to accept that there's absolutely no possibility he was not doping that made the discussion so grating. And trying to use the Daily Mail as some sort of authority on cycling and an objective reporter of facts is faintly ludicrous.
Most of us accept that, at the least, Wiggins might have gamed the TUE system. But it's the unwillingness to accept any possibility that Sky/Wiggins are not US Postal mk2 that undermines any semblance of reasonableness and objectivity.
I agree with this. The TUE system is open to abuse but that doesn't mean that Wiggins cheated.
I think that pretty much sums it up.0 -
Rodrego Hernandez wrote:Salsiccia1 wrote:Vino'sGhost wrote:The thing with ridiculing wcf and anyone who dares doubt wiggins is that its a lot like trumps approach to rewriting facts.
Sorry, respectfully I disagree. For me, there is some doubt about Wiggins, but it's the desperation for us to accept that there's absolutely no possibility he was not doping that made the discussion so grating. And trying to use the Daily Mail as some sort of authority on cycling and an objective reporter of facts is faintly ludicrous.
Most of us accept that, at the least, Wiggins might have gamed the TUE system. But it's the unwillingness to accept any possibility that Sky/Wiggins are not US Postal mk2 that undermines any semblance of reasonableness and objectivity.
I agree with this. The TUE system is open to abuse but that doesn't mean that Wiggins cheated.
I think that pretty much sums it up.
You've just contradicted yourself - first of all you say that you agree that the problem was that no one was was willing to accept that Belgian Brad cheated/doped/bent the rules so far as to be on the dark side of rule bending (whatever terminology you want) but then you say that "doesn't mean that Belgian Brad cheated" - i.e. You're saying that he deffo didn't.
All the evidence points to him having pushed the rules really really far - technically he may not have broken anything but morally?
If you want to be held in the highest esteem you don't do anything at all ever to even bring the heat onto you - look at Basson. That's the kind of guy we want - willing to stick everything on the line.Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am
De Sisti wrote:
This is one of the silliest threads I've come across.
Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honoursmithy21 wrote:
He's right you know.0 -
Matthewfalle wrote:Rodrego Hernandez wrote:Salsiccia1 wrote:Vino'sGhost wrote:The thing with ridiculing wcf and anyone who dares doubt wiggins is that its a lot like trumps approach to rewriting facts.
Sorry, respectfully I disagree. For me, there is some doubt about Wiggins, but it's the desperation for us to accept that there's absolutely no possibility he was not doping that made the discussion so grating. And trying to use the Daily Mail as some sort of authority on cycling and an objective reporter of facts is faintly ludicrous.
Most of us accept that, at the least, Wiggins might have gamed the TUE system. But it's the unwillingness to accept any possibility that Sky/Wiggins are not US Postal mk2 that undermines any semblance of reasonableness and objectivity.
I agree with this. The TUE system is open to abuse but that doesn't mean that Wiggins cheated.
I think that pretty much sums it up.
You've just contradicted yourself - first of all you say that you agree that the problem was that no one was was willing to accept that Belgian Brad cheated/doped/bent the rules so far as to be on the dark side of rule bending (whatever terminology you want) but then you say that "doesn't mean that Belgian Brad cheated" - i.e. You're saying that he deffo didn't.
All the evidence points to him having pushed the rules really really far - technically he may not have broken anything but morally?
If you want to be held in the highest esteem you don't do anything at all ever to even bring the heat onto you - look at Basson. That's the kind of guy we want - willing to stick everything on the line.
I don't think so.
Firstly, Brad isn't Belgian - are you trying to prove a point / be funny?
Secondly, he was given treatment for a condition. I sincerely doubt if he had much say in what he was given. He's a bike rider, not a doctor.
Thirdly - the evidence doesn't really suggest anything of the sort. The facts are out there and they can be interpreted 2 ways.
You don't know how the team is run but are making some massive assumptions about how much power or influence the riders have. I'll give you a clue. What Dave B says, goes. Regardless.0 -
Too many personal attacks in this one as well.
Thread locked.
Attack the post, not the poster.BikeRadar Communities Manager0
This discussion has been closed.
